I was startled to hear of a communiqué issued by Director, Information Department, informing the pubic that the price of petrol would not be adjusted in keeping with the Order of the Supreme Court. You will recall that in the forenoon on December 17, the Court made order for such adjustment to be effective from midnight the same day.

However, within hours, we came to know of the said communiqué through the news media on the Internet. The reason proffered in it was that the Court order had not yet communicated to the government in writing. Isn’t this attitude on the part of the Information Director startling, indeed?

As all know, the Court made this order in the course of proceedings in a fundamental rights application. Our law requires that in every such application, the legal agent of the government, namely, the Attorney general, should be made a respondent party. Or the petition will not be entertained by Court.

In fact the Basic Law of the land, the Constitution itself, has made such provision. Thus, the Attorney General or his junior counsel representing him was physically present in Court when the order under review was made. That, in effect, means that the order was delivered in the personal presence of ‘the government’.

The order was recorded in black and white and the Attorney General was informed of it by word of mouth. All necessary communications with the Cabinet or the government thereafter is an internal matter up to the Attorney general. The Court is not going to reduce it to writing and send it under registered post addressed to Cabinet Ministers.

Take a simple example of a Magistrate making order in open court that a respondent husband pay a specified sum of money to his deserted wife by way of maintenance. Can that respondent be heard to say, no, I won’t pay until the Magistrate sends it in writing?

Strangely, Information Director seems to think, yes.